OK so now we're drifting from ethics into epistemology, ontology and the value of constructed models - as I said before, that's my bread and butter. You're argu

OK so now we're drifting from ethics into epistemology, ontology and the value of constructed models - as I said before, that's my bread and butter. You're arguing for a relativistic, practically nihilistic interpretation of models where it's all made up anyway so no one model can be better than another. I take an anti-realist position, that there's nothing about morality that is intrinsic to reality, but that we invent our models to guide our actions towards outcomes we desire. The outcome of the categorical imperative is rigid adherence to rules that have no bearing with reality, the outcome of utilitarianism is preference fulfilment for as many people as possible. These goals are not equal in value unless you think that twiddling your thumbs and solving world hunger are goals of equal value, in which case I'd say nihilism is an anti-philosophy primarily held by edgy teenagers and does nothing for anybody except provide an ego defence against criticism, like ironic detachment. I wouldn't recommend pursuing it as a guiding principle.